My PhD research is tangled around Peer-production. Until this summer, I was a bit lost with the scope. After I was forced to create presentation about my first research results for OSS2012 conference, I found the boundaries. The focus is still in Peer-production, but focus is more clear. On one hand I will continue mapping the general characteristics of Peer-production. Data is collected with annual surveys. This part has been going on since 2010.

Communities of my PhD research. Data collected with annual surveys.

Peer-production generation

I have conducted annual surveys among Peer-production communities (hackerspaces, makerspaces, fablabs, etc) since 2010. Some of the results have been published (unofficial copy | official) and discussed in OSS2012 conference.Presentation available at speakerdeck

Presentation slides in SpeakerDeck

I will continue annual surveys and by so try to identify common characteristics of Peer-production generation in general:

motivation,

demographical distribution,

most common project types and

community funding

local community features.

Two revolutionary communities

During my research since 2010 I have found out that two communities stick out: 3D printing and DIYbio. Intention is to run annual surveys in both communities. 3D printing community surveys started this summer and some results can be found from Statistical Studies of Peer Production site. DIYbio community survey is already 95% ready and will be conducted for the first time this fall.

Based on the survey results found from the above communities will be used in comparing the two. Hopefully I will find some differences between the two. Focused characteristics will be the same as in general Peer-production surveys: